The myth about Essendon being duped by Dank

[Jobe Watson]

This thread is about Essendon claiming they have seen the emails from WADA that gave them the go ahead on AOD9604 not about what Dank told them.

Try to keep up

Well firstly, there is no suggestion that the e-mails we have seen so far are the ones that Essendon "fell for". Secondly, if you think two highly respected doctors from two separate clubs could read the e-mail that we saw from WADA last night, where AOD was clearly stated to be prohibited under S0, and believe that AOD was ok to use, then God help you.

Either Dank has another e-mail/letter from ASADA in his possession, or he has created a fraudulent document and lied to two clubs.

 

[DudleyB]

The correspondence between Dank and WADA that was supposed to save Essendon does not contain a hint of AOD9604 being an approved substance.
However what it does contain is Dank trying to put words in WADA's mouth and their representative having none of that and pointing out the substance is most likely a no-go zone.

The million dollar question is - Why did Bomber officials claim it did and requested the FEDS to investigate the authenticity of it????

Massive smokescreen
Bombers are just trying to create an air of confusion to help mitigate their negligence.

there are only 2 questions that are relevant in all of this.

1. Did Essendon players take banned substances in 2012? - ANSWER = YES

2. Did Essendon players, coaches or officials contact the relevant agency (ASADA) for advice during 2012? - ANSWER = NO

All this bs white noise attempt to create confusion and mitigation and straw men and red herrings is nothing but paid PR experts and lawyers trying their luck to earn their keep. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

 

[PieBeast]

Well firstly, there is no suggestion that the e-mails we have seen so far are the ones that Essendon "fell for". Secondly, if you think two highly respected doctors from two separate clubs could read the e-mail that we saw from WADA last night, where AOD was clearly stated to be prohibited under S0, and believe that AOD was ok to use, then God help you.

Thats what Essendon are claiming not me.

Either Dank has another e-mail/letter from ASADA in his possession, or he has created a fraudulent document and lied to two clubs.

So basically Essendon is lying until we see the copy of this imaginary email, got ya

 

[GarnerSmash]

Here's what Dank said in another e-mail that was conveniently skipped over by the 7:30 Report:

"ASADA have already confirmed with the manufacturer that it does not [cut off]... list."

So, either Dank is lying about that or has misconstrued information, or ASADA have given out incorrect information.

So Dank is to be considered potentially trustworthy now?

 

[Public Enemy No1]

Essendon basically trying to cover all bases.
Lawyer up and deny deny deny. If this does not work then plan B, phantom letter and direct all blame at evil Dank.

This has gone beyond Essendon caring about the truth, they only care about what can be proved ! Defence stratergy will be based solely on which direction the investigation turns and not based on integrity or facts.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Well firstly, there is no suggestion that the e-mails we have seen so far are the ones that Essendon "fell for". Secondly, if you think two highly respected doctors from two separate clubs could read the e-mail that we saw from WADA last night, where AOD was clearly stated to be prohibited under S0, and believe that AOD was ok to use, then God help you.

Either Dank has another e-mail/letter from ASADA in his possession, or he has created a fraudulent document and lied to two clubs.

Not having a crack at the Bombers because we're in the same boat re AOD9604, but I don't reckon our clubs have a leg to stand on against ASADA if this turns out to be a fraudulent letter. The onus will have been on the doctors and others, players even, to do their own research and ask the questions themselves rather than trust a letter/email that could have easily been falsified by someone with an agenda.

The only hope we have here is that ASADA have stuffed up and actually sent out a letter saying that all is well - maybe it was the work-experience kiddy in charge that day. But this is a pretty dim hope because a letter that would clear up everything about AOD9604 would surely have come to light weeks ago. I don't know how one guy shows a letter/email to several people, at least 4 by my count, at two different organisations, and not one of them is able to get or keep a copy. The more likely scenario is that Dank assured people that the letter existed and that they would get a copy, but kept making excuses as to why he didn't bring it/send it.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Here's what Dank said in another e-mail that was conveniently skipped over by the 7:30 Report:

"ASADA have already confirmed with the manufacturer that it does not contravene the standards for S2 and as such is not on the banned list."

So, either Dank is lying about that or has misconstrued information, or ASADA have given out incorrect information.

Ever think it could say something like that and he has totally overlooked S0?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Well firstly, there is no suggestion that the e-mails we have seen so far are the ones that Essendon "fell for". Secondly, if you think two highly respected doctors from two separate clubs could read the e-mail that we saw from WADA last night, where AOD was clearly stated to be prohibited under S0, and believe that AOD was ok to use, then God help you.

Either Dank has another e-mail/letter from ASADA in his possession, or he has created a fraudulent document and lied to two clubs.

Dank has claimed in public the letter was from WADA, no?

Even if he had another letter from ASADA that contradicts the WADA information that would not be a green light.

 

[Jobe Watson]

So Dank is to be considered potentially trustworthy now?

Dank has shown through this entire ordeal that he appears to be anything other than trustworthy.

Ever think it could say something like that and he has totally overlooked S0?

He hasn't overlooked S0. He is just of the belief that AOD is not banned under that rule due to the fact it is found in a perfectly legal weight loss cream.

 

[jenny61_99]

Well firstly, there is no suggestion that the e-mails we have seen so far are the ones that Essendon "fell for". Secondly, if you think two highly respected doctors from two separate clubs could read the e-mail that we saw from WADA last night, where AOD was clearly stated to be prohibited under S0, and believe that AOD was ok to use, then God help you.

Either Dank has another e-mail/letter from ASADA in his possession, or he has created a fraudulent document and lied to two clubs.

Are these the same highly respected doctors that some Essendon supporters are suggesting should take responsibility for the whole mess?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Dank has shown through this entire ordeal that he appears to be anything other than trustworthy.


He hasn't overlooked S0. He is just of the belief that AOD is not banned under that rule due to the fact it is found in a perfectly legal weight loss cream.

It's a mighty big jump from a cream to an intravenous injection

 

[shiraz]

Dank has shown through this entire ordeal that he appears to be anything other than trustworthy.


He hasn't overlooked S0. He is just of the belief that AOD is not banned under that rule due to the fact it is found in a perfectly legal weight loss cream.

So he wasn't trying to deceive, he was just wrong?

 

[PieBeast]

So he wasn't trying to deceive, he was just wrong?

And further to that its Essendon who is trying to deceive by claiming they have seen the letters from WADA that approved the use of AOD9604.

 

[byronstjames]

Massive smokescreen
Bombers are just trying to create an air of confusion to help mitigate their negligence.

there are only 2 questions that are relevant in all of this.

1. Did Essendon players take banned substances in 2012? - ANSWER = YES

2. Did Essendon players, coaches or officials contact the relevant agency (ASADA) for advice during 2012? - ANSWER = NO

All this bs white noise attempt to create confusion and mitigation and straw men and red herrings is nothing but paid PR experts and lawyers trying their luck to earn their keep. It should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

/investigation.

 

[pinot]

Here's what Dank said in another e-mail that was conveniently skipped over by the 7:30 Report:

"ASADA have already confirmed with the manufacturer that it does not [cut off]... list."

So, either Dank is lying about that or has misconstrued information, or ASADA have given out incorrect information.

Highly Optimistic. If that were remotely true then why the ASADA and ACC investigation?

 

[fomoco04]

So based on what we've seen so far, if Dank told Essendon that he had approval, then he has lied to the club.

So shouldn't Essendon have carried out due diligence and checked that they were being told the truth? If they didn't then they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Lets fill that in the likeliest way shall we?

"ASADA have already confirmed with the manufacturer that it does not appear on the WADA prohibited substances list."

Can't see that ASADA would check with the manufacturer to determine a substances WADA status.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

The issue is irrelevant as long as it's the player's responsibility to check what they take.

As for the situation between Essendon and Dank on this (leaving the players out of it), it shows Essendon's due diligence was near non existent. The club should have made sure the program they put to the players was legal. Instaead it was just a text from Hird saying he would like everything to be kosher. Hird's duty would be to make sure everything went through the club doctor, and the club doctor's duty would be to do what Dank claims he did. And then of course the players would need to check independently to cover themselves. That's thousands less phone calls and emails than what has happened over this case, btw.

 

[blue harvest]

Here's what Dank said in another e-mail that was conveniently skipped over by the 7:30 Report:

"ASADA have already confirmed with the manufacturer that it does not [cut off]... list."

So, either Dank is lying about that or has misconstrued information, or ASADA have given out incorrect information.

So you are saying there is a 2nd letter?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

So he wasn't trying to deceive, he was just wrong?

I have posted about this earlier.

Dank may have been mislead by ASADA. But he clearly ignores warnings about SO as evidenced by his emails with Irene from WADA.

I think he has shown himself to be a fairly wily customer. He tells people that AOD isn't on the banned list (which is true), without telling them about S0. This way he isn't actually lying, although he is being misleading. But this subtle difference (lying vs misleading) may save his arse in court.

 

[PieBeast]

Guys, you're all making good points but lets keep this baby on topic, which is Essendon claiming to have seen the letters from WADA approving the use of the substance in question.

 

[PieBeast]

So you are saying there is a 2nd letter?

View attachment 17212

He's right though, problem for Essendon is it doesn't contain the approval of AOD, only Dank's wishful thinking

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85225270@N02/8701729170/in/photostream/lightbox/

 

[hoianbulldog]

He hasn't overlooked S0. He is just of the belief that AOD is not banned under that rule due to the fact it is found in a perfectly legal weight loss cream.

OR.......He thought he wouldn't get caught, and probably wouldn't have if it weren't for the ACC investigation.

The guys isn't a newbie on the street and he isn't an idiot. He has been around and would know that he needs to check and double check the legality of any new substance introduced to his arsenal. The counter at DJ's isn't the most logical place to determine WADA compliance and it's amusing you people back EFC using AOD on that basis.

 

[FootyGeek]

If there is ever the choice between a cover up or a stuff up, the stuff up is usually what actually happened.

Everything reported points to Dank making a mistake.

He was employed by Essendon at the time. He had superiors at Essendon who were overseeing him.

His mistake is Essendon's mistake.

Essendon's culpability extends to the murky area of weekly stomach injections of players. Even if we assume no PEDs this type of supplement administration is very unusual and just plain borderline in and of itself.

Add the method of administration with bad management which allowed drugs untested with that method of administration which fail the S0 test then it follows that Essendon have a lot to answer for.

 

[Jobe Watson]

Dank may have been mislead by ASADA. But he clearly ignores warnings about SO as evidenced by his emails with Irene from WADA.

The reason he ignored that warning in the e-mail we saw last night was because he was already of the belief that AOD did not fall under the S0 category and had already expressed that belief in a seperate e-mail. Why did he think this was the case? Who knows. Either he has misinterpreted the rules, or someone wrongly gave him the all clear.

So shouldn't Essendon have carried out due diligence and checked that they were being told the truth? If they didn't then they have no one to blame but themselves.

Probably - and that's why we had an internal review conducted to see why this didn't occur.

However, if an employee at the club whose job and responsibility it is to find out this information (Dank) tells you something that you believe to be true, you'd be inclined to take him on his word. I don't think everything would be double and triple checked at each club.